LexTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus MR. MONOTOSH ROY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL A v. MR. MONOTOSH ROY AND ANJ\ DECEMBER 9, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B~ Service law: The All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958- Pension--Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Retired prior to 1986-Pension C fixed as per rules-Subsequent. amendment of rules by a notification dated May 22, 1987-Pension of persons retiring after 1.1.86 revised-Office Memorandum dated 16.4.87-Pension of persons retiring prior lo 1.1.86 rationalised-Writ petition for extension of the benefits of amendmelJ/ to persons retired prior to 1.1.86-Dismissed by Single Judge-Division Bench of the High Court holding that he was entitled to revised pension as granted D to persons retiring after 1.1.86.-0n appeal, held, he does not come within the purview of the amended rules-Hence not entitled to revision of pension at par with post 1.1.86 p~nsioners. The first respondent retired as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in E February 1981. His pension was fixed in accordance with All India Service Rules. The All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits ) Rules, 1958 were amended by a notification dated May 22, 1987 whereby the pension of persons retiring after 1.1.86 was to be calculated at 50% of the basic pay in the restructured supertime scale with a ceiling. In case of persons who retired prior to 1.1.86, the Govt. rationalised the pension structure by an F office Memorandum dated 16.4.87. In view of the said memorandum the first respondent's pension was refixed. However, the first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that the benefits which were conferred on persons who retired after 1.1.86 should be made available to the persons who retired prior to that date. The said writ petition was dismissed by Single G Judge. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the first respondent's pension be refixed by including in the basic pay dearness allowance and other allowances which were allowed to post 1.1.86 pensioners. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court 435 H 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A HELD: 1. The first respondent is not entitled for refixing his pension at par with the persons who retired after 1.1.86. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in granting the relief to the first respondent. [441-G-H] 2.1 The first respondent does not come within the purview of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, as amended by B the notification dated 22nd May 1987. The word " emoluments" has been defined thereby to mean the pay that a member of the service was receiving before his retirement or death, as the case may be. The proviso to the definition clause is to the effect that in the case ofa member of the service retiring from service within ten months of the date of coming over to the C revised scales of pay, the emoluments in respect of any period prior to coming over to the revised scales of pay shall include the pay other than special pay in the pre-revised scale, dearness allowance, additional dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance appropriate to pay upto cost of Price Index 608 actually drawn during the relevant period and interim relief appropriate to pay actually drawn during the relevant period. The expression D " Revised scales of pay" has been defined to mean the scales of pay introduced with effect from lst day of January, 1986. Thus the definition clauses themselves exclude the first respondent who retired from service in February, 1981 long before the revision of scales of pay came into force. E [439-E-H; 440-A] 2.2. Rule 18 provides for the amount of gratuity and pension, in the case of a member of the service who retires from service in accordance with the rules. The note at the end of the rule reads that a member of the service before lst day of January, 1986 shall be granted such additional relief in pension, as may be sanctioned by the Central Government. Hence the F provisions of Rule 18 fixing the amount of gratuity or pension will not apply to the first respondent. [440-A-B) G State of U.P. v. Jogendra Singh and Anr., (1998) 1 SCC 449 and V. Kasturi v. Managing Director State Bank of India Bombay and Anr., JT [1998) 7 SC 147, relied on. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) l SCC 305, held inapplicable. All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and Ors
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.